SANJAY SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the petitioner under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for release on in anticipation of his arrest.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mathur has contended that the petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is a lawyer by profession. In case he is not released on anticipatory bail his work would suffer further which is already suffering. The prosecutrix Smt. Kamla in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has completely exonerated the petitioner in as much as she has stated therein that she was having sexual intercourse with the petitioner out of her own free will without any pressure and coercion. The learned counsel thus contends that in view of the above the petitioner is entitled to an order of bail.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution as adumbrated through the FIR is that the petitioner was a tenant in the house of the prosecutrix. He gave to her certain sweets which contained intoxicating material. After having consumed the same she fell unconscious. While she was unconscious the petitioner took the advantage and committed rape on her. While she was being raped she was photographed. Later on the said photographs were used for blackmailing the prosecutrix to enable the petitioner to have sex with her.